Comments

This is hysteria at a time we've enjoyed way too much of the stuff. The U.S. has held an election and we shall see what we shall see. Checks and balances is an institutional system, and its processes by intent grind town, tie up and redefine . Checks and balances is far more than the three branches' check on one another. It is, most significantly, a check on the people, as it was designed to be. GOP margins shrank in both houses of Congress, which makes it likely that gridlock will be an even greater check and balance. This election means there is a better chance of changes that I will hate. But as Lindsey Graham reminded fellow Republicans when he voted to confirm Obama appointees, elections have consequences becUse they are supposed to. I would note that when the Supremes made the ruling that forced Nixon out, most were Republicans and four were nixon appointees. Read more

The checks and balances in the Constitution were gutted by the current president, when he entered into a treaty with a foreign power (Iran nuclear accord aka JCPOA) without the advice and consent of 3/5 of the Senate.

This clause in the Constitution prevents the single person heading the Executive branch from committing the nation to foreign entanglements without the overwhelming backing the nation's representatives in the Senate.

Fortunately this outrageous executive overreach will soon be corrected by President-elect Trump.Read more

"Proposals like restricting immigration on the basis of religion are unconstitutional"

What is the Supreme Court precedent that establishes this as unconstitutional, since the US Constitution does not describe the rights of foreigners outside US borders?

In fact, as any legal immigrant or visitor will know, anyone requesting a visa to enter the U.S. has to check two boxes on the application form: 1) that one had never been a member of the Nazi part and 2) that one was not a member of the Communist party.

These are two ideological tests for receiving a US visa that were never contested nor ruled unconstitutional. Restricting immigration based on religion only adds a third ideological test to the current two for entering the U.S.

From the current visa application DS-160:"(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-

(i) In general.-Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible." Read more

Alas, confirming what have been my worst fears. There are no institutions, there are merely laws and practices (the two sometimes coincide and sometimes not). Trump's entire career is based on finding the soft spots in consensual practices and standards and puncturing them for his own benefit. Why anybody thinks he would treat the US government any differently is unfathomable. Any president who comes into office intending to destroy the practices and standards built up in public trust for almost two and a half centuries can do so, and we have very little to protect us --only the congress, which will be his amen corner for at least two years, and only the courts, which is he going to pack with ideologues approving of his brand of brutalist authoritarianism. Democracy si very very fragile. Read more

Checks and balances. Stuff and nonsense. Stop pretending there was some golden age.

Bill Winters, CEO of Standard Chartered at a recent Financial Times banking conference in London -

"To grossly simplify it, the share of global profits going to labour was 60% and and the share going to capital was 40% up until the day China joined the WTO [World Trade Organisation],"

"At that point the lines converge and since then diverge with capital getting up to about 60% of the profits and labour 40%. That's a moment in history," ... "It's not obviously all China and it's not all the WTO accession. But something's going to change,"

Where exactly were your checks and balances whilst that was ongoing and fingers were on the balance. Nowhere Read more

Maybe Professor Stepan can help me, as my Google abilities seem to be deficient today. I am looking for a similar article he may or may not have written in 2008 when President Obama was elected, coming into office with the Democratic party also controlling the House and Senate? I'm sure the professor was just as concerned about the checks and balances as set out in the Constitution, and the danger that this presented. In fact, we watched in horror as the Democratic majority rammed through legislation with zero support from the loyal opposition, running roughshod over the stated desires of about 40% of the population. As President Obama once said, "Elections have consequences", a truth that has long been evident in the United States. The fact that the country has taken a more conservative turn (witnessed not by the Presidential election, but by the state and local growth of the Republican Party) no doubt troubles Professor Stepan. Why wasn't the similar turn to the left in 2008 just as troubling? Read more

Alfred Stepan highlights the enormous power Trump will wield once he takes office. His viciousness and vindictiveness during his campaign instil fear that America could plunge into autocracy, infringing on civil rights of its citizens. With the presidency, House and Senate firmly in Republican hands the one-party rule risks to dismantle the mechanisms of the once "much-touted system of checks and balances as set out in the country's constitution."Obama learned that the greatest threat to his executive orders has been the court system, which has derailed his efforts to combat climate change and extend legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants. With the nation’s Supreme Court leaning his way, Trump is unlikely to face obstacle in overturning landmark rulings, relating campaign-finance limits or voting rights act. The GOP had prevented Obama from replacing Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who died earlier this year. There may be more vacancies available soon in the "aging" Court. These slots are "currently held by liberal and centrist justices. Republicans therefore have a good chance of creating a conservative majority on the nine-member Supreme Court that may last for decades, especially if they win the presidency again in 2020."But the Democrats still have one wild card in their hand: the Senate filibuster. If it is wielded, the GOP must receive 60 votes for legislation to pass. That number remains beyond the reach of Republicans, whose "obstructionism in the Senate has also put other levels of the federal judiciary at risk. During Obama’s second term in office, the rate at which vacancies in the US District and Circuit Courts were filled fell to its lowest point in 50 years. Trump can now fill rapidly these vacancies with conservative judges who may well erode checks and balances further." That America has drifted to the right can be observed at the state level. "Republicans now control an all-time high of 68 of the 99 state legislative chambers and 33 of the 50 governorships." Nevertheless, the author sees "some reason for hope: the ultimate source of checks and balances is the US constitution." To amend it requires "a supermajority of two-thirds" in the House and the Senate, "where the Republicans have nowhere near that kind of dominance." Another "route to constitutional amendment is a vote by two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50 states) to call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention, which then must put forward an amendment that is subsequently ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures or state conventions."Even though "no amendment in US history has ever been approved by this route," the Republicans are power greedy and could pursue a reckless strategy "to gain control over at least three or four more legislatures." This attempt "should worry people more than it does."There's a danger that the filibuster be abolished by the GOP in the 2017-2018 Senate session. Given the intransigence of the Republicans, Democrats and "concerned citizens" need to fight tooth and nail to reestablish checks and balances in America." The author sees "three urgent tasks" to tackle. 1) To win "at least three more Senate seats in 2018." 2) To prevent Republicans from gaining control of three-quarters of state legislatures for changing the constitutional amendments. 3) To "mobilize more of their fellow citizens to reject authoritarian-style tactics and policies and support more inclusive democratic alternatives."The author urges Democrats to forge "attractive and credible alternatives" and bank on the principle of "buyer's remorse" when disaffected voters want to unseat their "populist politicians with authoritarian tendencies" in the next election. According to 2014 polls Republican voters are more politically active than moderates and liberals. Democrats need to reach out to young people, who were fascinated by Bernie Sanders and Trump's supporters, who will no doubt be disappointed because he won't be able to deliver on his campaign pleges. Jobs in Rust Belt areas are gone forever and Trump surrounds himself with people, who are members of the estalishment, his voters so much loathe.﻿ Read more

This is another of these pathetic leftist screeds from a trusted academic. Trusted to attempt to indoctrinate, rather that teach through serious analysis. So all the "checks and balances" have been eliminated? No, it would take a series of Constitutional amendments to do that. What you, professor, are seeing is the result of a democratic election where the people spoke and you should try listening. Trump will use his position to fill the Supreme Court vacancy with a judge that will show respect for the Constitution, as written, not the so-called "Living Constitution" that means whatever Ruth Ginsberg feels like today or tomorrow. Yes, Citizens United gave a voice in our democracy to corporations just like unions have had a voice for years. Citizens United simply balanced the scales of the democratic process. There is a reason that that there are 33 Republican governors; 69 of 99 state house are controlled by the GOP; 31 attorneys general are Republicans - the people have spoken all over the USA rejecting Obama and his leftist policies. "Voter suppression" is the biggest fraud the left has manufactured in years. Having to show an I.D., like you do to board an airplane or train, is hardly "voter suppression". Get serious and stop making every reasonable control against voter fraud some racist ploy to deprive blacks of their vote. The Constitution is the source of "checks and balances" in our Republic and if only Obama had recognized that when he made his "recess appointments"; re-wrote the Clean Air Act; signed the Iran treaty without the Advice and Consent of the Senate and refused to enforce current immigration law. That is not "faithfully executing the law". If Obama had only shown respect for the Constitution? Trump can quickly restrict illegal immigration by implementing E-Verify, like Arizona did, to enforce current law restricting employment to citizens and people legally in the US. 400,000 illegals have moved out of Arizona in the past 3 years, most going home to Sonora. The filibuster is not what it used to be after Harry Died suspended it to "pack" the DC Circuit Court and make numerous other District Court appointments before the democrats lost the Senate. Turnaround is fair play, is it not? The Paris Climate Agreement is not treaty so by executive order the US can opt out and we should. It is a sham. The ACA will be repealed and replaced because it has failed miserably. Using "reconciliation" as the dems did, it will be replaced. Most of his executive orders will also be nullified within 100 days so get used to it. As for authoritarian policy, look only to Obama with "his phone and his pen". The professor may not like our democracy but it is working in 2016 and this country decided to reject the leftist/progressive policies and "Make America Great Again". Read more

" to reestablish checks and balances". #1) Your politicians should speak about issues instead of running people down. #2) Tell your paid protesters to speak about what they are for instead of running people down #3) Tell your media to speak about the issues instead of running people down #4) Stop putting words in other peoples mouths with innuendo and propaganda and you might actually regain power. Read more

Citizens are fed up with being cheated and abused; Now they are legitimately using the only weapon in their hands ... their vote.It seems strange to me that this article was not written down earlier if the conditions it denounced exist for a long time.Why precisely now? Read more

Credible alternatives have been around for a long time but they require effort to understand. So the press sticks to the typical sound bite style ideas that the two main parties spew forth, and the public lap them up, oblivious to the fact the real solutions are readily available. Read more

The two parties in the US are two sides of the same coin, therefore there was never and there will never be proper check and balances. The people in the US and in the UK exercised their democratic right, do get over it and enough of this non sense talk about populist movements here and there. Your article failed to mention that Trump is an outcast even to his own party, he is a man who has it all, unlike the "nouveau riche". Therefore, Trump and the people that voted for him are anti-establishment and it is better for Trump, for his and everyone else's sake, NOT to ensure continuity of policies but rather pursue a total dismantlement of the Obama / Clinton failed policies and regulations. Read more

Both parties ran the government with little regard for the economic interests of blue collar workers and much regard for the interests of the top 1%, especially the finance sector. Is this what you see DT tackling? Read more

On the one hand, Trump (and the GOP as it rushes to kiss his ring) can now do a great deal of harm. But on the other hand, if they do nothing of substance with regard to real populist concerns (a likely scenario in my view), their legacy will be a lot of even angrier and more disillusioned Trump supporters. Either way, it looks like the republic is in for some hard times -- which will play out in an era of ever increasing political divisiveness.

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.